Cultural Geography

deterritorialization and reterritorialization,

adopted from Deleuze and Guattari (1984), who

used them to describe the effects of capitalism on

previous fixed orders of class, kinship and space.

These notions have been significant for critical

geopoliticians and IR scholars who have analysed

the representational practices that have been

hidden in the construction of the territorial trap.

They have noted the importance of the boundary-

drawing practices that are used in the spatiali-

zation of identity, nationhood and threats

(Ó Tuathail and Dalby, 1998).

Nowhere has the metaphor of ‘border cross-

ing’ been more evident than in discourses on

cyberspaceand its effects on current spatializa-

tions. It has been argued that virtual spaces will

give rise to new global geographies that will

change the ways we think, the nature of sexuality,

the forms of communities and our very identities

(Turkle, 1996: 9). Similarly electronic space

has been seen potentially as a major theatre for

capital accumulation (Sassen, 1999). Cyberspace

also enables the creation of identity communi-

ties, which are not territorially bounded and may

challenge the territorial trap of existing nation-

states. The internet has been an important tool

for social movements (for example, first nations)

that operate both inside states and across borders

(Routledge, 1998).

Leaders in many states (for example, Japan

and Singapore) feel that cyberspace may threaten

their cultural identities and have therefore been

hesitant about enabling their citizens to connect

to the internet at all (Stratton, 1997). This shows

that the role of traditional/new institutions that

control and reproduce territoriality/boundaries

and national socialization will remain strong. In

Finland, for instance, the number of mobile

phones is about 75 per 100 inhabitants, which is

among the highest rates in the world, and also

internet links are part of everyday life for almost

one-third of the population. These links have not,

however, led to the disappearance of national

boundaries. While new devices are ‘connecting

people’ – also across the national boundaries –

they do not inevitably change the content of national

socialization and identity discourses, neither do

they remove totally the territorial elements from

journalism, media space or legislation. Also mili-

tary and foreign policy practice and the border

guarding systems have remained the same, even if

the territorial context is now not only the Finnish

state but also the EU (Paasi, 1998).

New technology may also create new bound-

aries. Cyberspace may be used in the reterritori-

alization and construction of images of ‘natural

boundaries’, of ‘us’ and enemies, as is evident

in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and

Rwanda (Campbell, 1998). Like globalization as

a whole, new technology also produces inequality:

not everybody can afford new technological

devices. In many countries in Africa and Asia,

for instance, both the low level of literacy and

almost non-existing telephone links among

ordinary people make a mockery of most utopian

visions of the power of global cyberspace.

According to the statistics of the UN only 2.4 per

cent of the world population has used the inter-

net. As Ó Tuathail and Dalby (1998: 13) have

noted, the digital nation may transgress state

boundaries but it will remain the virtual ‘home’

of a small elite fraction of the world’s overall

population.

Are boundaries disappearing?

Previous analysis shows that very different

views of the current roles of boundaries exist.

These views are based, firstly, on diverging the-

oretical and conceptual frameworks that are used

in interpreting the meanings of globalization and

sovereignty. Secondly, they indicate that bound-

aries have many functions: they are elements

in the international governance, instruments of

state policy and territorial control, but also con-

stituents and challengers of existing social identi-

ties. Thirdly, varying interpretations display that

knowledge and understanding are situated cate-

gories. Thus changing economic, political and

cultural contexts affect how researchers shape

the categories that they use to interpret current

territorial transformations. Boundaries, their dis-

appearance, globalization or sovereignty mean

different things not only for researchers coming

from various states and ‘academic territories’ but

also for politicians, international capitalists,

business gurus, military leaders, refugees and

displaced people or ordinary people.

The ideas and ‘truths’ of boundaries or the

nation-state are themselves products of contested

discourses. The meanings attached to boundaries

are often expressions of various ideologies and

rhetorics of power. The members of the elite

often have conflicting aims with regard to

boundaries. While economic actors may struggle

to promote cross-border activities, military and

political actors try usually to keep the state, its

instruments of violence and narratives of ‘the

nation under threat’ in operation (Paasi, 1998).

Previous contested visions raise the serious

question of whether boundaries are really dis-

appearing, or whether our conceptualizations are

inadequate for understanding their current, compli-

catedroles. It is clear that we are moving towards

a situation where exclusive state boundaries are,

BOUNDARIES IN A GLOBALIZING WORLD 469

3029-ch24.qxd 03-10-02 11:03 AM Page 469